Why is the idea of god so powerful if she is infinite? Why not finite? Why not be awed by a finite god?

Where did I say she was infinite? I don't know what that even means.

An omnipotent person can do anything.
That's what omnipotent means.
So an omnipotent person can do anything. — Bartricks

Good so far, and I appreciate it!

To be able to do anything, you need to be Reason, the source of all norms and evaluations. — Bartricks

You were doing so well! But I would say that to be able to do anything, you have to be able to do everything; as you say, omnipotent. The requirement of anything else undercuts the omnipotence. And I see no need of reason as in any sense constitutive of the omnipotence. After all, He is already omnipotent without it. And must be, because reason itself bestows no power, much less omnipotence.

What is it to be all-good? It is to be fully approved of by Reason. — Bartricks

Interesting. But it makes the good logically prior to reason. Which is nonsensical on your terms.

Which is what would be the case if Reason fully approved of how you are. Which is what being all-good consists in. — Bartricks

Oh. It appears that the good is in the being and not in the doing. But even so still prior to reason. If the good is what is approved by reason, then what is the good before it is approved by reason?

So, again, repeat 30 times. "Being all-good, and being fully approved of by Reason are one and the same" — Bartricks

But you have just shown they are not, and saying it 30 or 300 times won't fix that.

And what does approval have to do with anything? What exactly is the criteria for approval? We might say the good, but that just puts the good as both separate and a constraint on omnipotence and on reason, and on approval.

So, an omnipotent person will also be omnibenevolent.
That's called an 'explanation'.
It's beautiful. It's elegant. You should be in absolute awe of it. — Bartricks

Awe, not absolute, and not at what you think. Rather that you should trust your water to such a sieve. Try mending the holes.

At the same I still appreciate the effort. Thank you for that!

Philosophy and spirituality deal with infinite things. Its odd that you don't understand infinite things, but you don't seem like a true philosophy person to me. God can be finite or infinite. They kind of cancel out logically but they are great ideas, good for growth beyond Ego

Where did I say she was infinite? I didn't. I don't know what that means. Strawman.

You were doing so well! But I would say that to be able to do anything, you have to be able to do everything; as you say, omnipotent. The requirement of anything else undercuts the omnipotence. And I see no need of reason as in any sense constitutive of the omnipotence. After all, He is already omnipotent without it. And must be, because reason itself bestows no power, much less omnipotence. — tim wood

Er, what? I mean, what are you on about? Reason can do anything, because Reason constitutively determines what's possible. Thus the omnipotent being would have to be Reason because otherwise the omnipotent being would be constrained by the laws of Reason (Reason and Reason alone has the power to make contradictions true, and to make anything true, for what it is for a proposition to be true is for it to be being asserted by Reason).

Anyway, that's all way above your intellectual pay grade, clearly.

What is it to be all-good? It is to be fully approved of by Reason.
— Bartricks
Interesting. But it makes the good logically prior to reason. Which is nonsensical on your terms. — tim wood

No it doesn't. They're equivalent properties. It's like saying 'that makes cheese prior to fromage' or some such nonsense.

Oh. It appears that the good is in the being and not in the doing. But even so still prior to reason. If the good is what is approved by reason, then what is the good before it is approved by reason? — tim wood

No, the issue is what is it to 'be' good. And to 'be' good is to be such that Reason fully approves of you. Slow. Did you repeat these things 30 times to yourself like you were told? I hope you didn't try and understand it all in one go.

The point was that you don't know what infinite being means, so you have not gone through the Plato stage, let alone beyond it

You seriously think you're in a position to tell anyone they don't understand something? Nothing you say makes any sense.

Where did I say God was infinite?

So you see design and contingency in the world. You say a mind must be behind it. But why say it's all powerful. You already said you don't know what an infinite God is. But your God has infinite contradictions it can create. So it's infinite contra what you say. But wait, why does this mind have to be infinite in your view?

Your opinions are contingent

Where did I say that God was infinite? Quote me saying it.

And you can't read. I said rewritten not reread

What logical necessity is there for all gods to be "omnipotent" and to all want contradictory things at the same time?

I think it is perfectly possible for there to be many lower gods ruled by one supreme God and each fulfill his or her own function in harmony with the others. — Apollodorus

Agreed, the thousands of gods that are, for example, part of the Hindu & Greek pantheon are not omnipotent, in fact their powers need a lot of help from cunning I'm told - reminds me of Superman and Lex Luthor. Might want to initiate an inquiry in that direction - brains vs brawn.

Also true that for things to get done, assuming there's some kind of committee/council of gods, harmony is a must. If not, any plans they have won't see the light of day.

In short, there really is, at least based on my previous arguments, no logical necessity for monotheism.

What I want to do now is to offer a different argument that just popped into my head.

First a few things that need to be clarified:

1. Polytheism, by my reckoning, makes a lot of sense. Look around you - there's one word to describe the situation earth is in, "chaos". There's one possibility that could explain it - many gods (polytheism) vying for supremacy or simply disagreeing with each other over the world and how it shoud be run.

2. Atheism: There are no gods. What's mighty interesting is a world without any god would also be chaotic. In other words, having many gods bickering over the world is equivalent to a world in which there are no gods, the results in both cases are identical - disorder.

Polytheism = Atheism. It's a paradox!

Suppose now that a believer is given the options:
1. Polytheism
2. Monotheism

The believer can't choose polytheism (1) because that can't be distinguished from atheism. Hence the believer will opt for 2. Monotheism. Put simply, if you must believe in the divine, you have to subscribe to monotheism (2).

One might then conclude the monotheist is not yet out of the woods because one god is incompatible with the facts of the world (the chaos/disorder therein). That's a (small) price monotheists are willing to pay so long as they can be distinguished from atheism which isn't possible if they were polytheists.

Make any sense?

An omnipotent god could make another omnipotent god. So there can be two omnipotent gods. There isn't- there's one. But if there's one, it is possible for there to be more.

People routinely underestimate what an omnipotent being can do. — Bartricks

It seems the argument for monotheism has nothing to do with the God's powers. See my argument in my reply to Apollodorus.

I just thought Christopher Hitchens' quote might just spice up the debate. See vide infra.

From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure. — Christopher Hitchens

Unfortunately, for the late great Hitchens, having zero gods (atheism) is a gateway to having not one but many gods (polytheism).

Also true that for things to get done, assuming there's some kind of committee/council of gods, harmony is a must. If not, any plans they have won't see the light of day. — TheMadFool

Well, that's exactly how they used to see it. There was a council of gods ruled by a supreme God as can be seen from the OT:

The LORD is greater than all gods: Exodus 18:11

Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? Exodus 15:11

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1

In general, each city or city-state had a patron god that was worshiped above other gods. there was also a national God who was above other gods. Zeus was the "King of the gods" among the Greeks, Yahweh was the Lord of all gods among the Hebrews, etc. So, monotheism started with henotheism and monolatry. As long as you regard one God as being above everything else, it doesn't really matter in any significant way. So, from that perspective, there is no great contradiction between monotheism and polytheism.

But I don't agree on the chaos/disorder aspect. I can't see too much of that where I live in any case. It all seems pretty orderly to me. Perhaps not 100% perfect, but could be worse, so why complain?

I do not understand you. You argued that there cannot be more than one omnipotent being.

Bu there can be more than one. There is no reason to suppose there is more than one, for adding another will not explain anything that could not be more efficiently explained by one. But there can be more than one.

Reason can do anything — Bartricks

Like what? It's clear you're plaining loose with both ideas and words, and trying to bully through when your bluff is called. Call again when you've grown up a bit.

You should learn to listen to your betters. An omnipotent being can do anything. To be able to do anything requires being Reason, for otherwise one will be constrained by Reason.
This isn't hard.
I am still waiting for a puzzle. You haven't shown that there is the least problem with the omni properties. I indeed,I have shown how they flow from omnipotence.
But anyway, sensing that you were out of your depth and unable to comprehend how someone was so easily dealing with what you were convinced were serious problems (despite being unable to say precisely what they were), you flailed about and guffed a lot of hot air about God and time. Now, what is the problem with time supposed to be, Planky?

An omnipotent being can do anything. To be able to do anything requires being Reason, for otherwise one will be constrained by Reason. — Bartricks

We'll be good when you - or anyone - can explain why omnipotence has anything whatever to do with reason. I know, you've said it does repeatedly, but that doesn't do it.

I have explained time and time again. Reason determines what's possible and what's what and what exists. Evidence is made of epistemic reasons. What are epistemic reasons? Attitudes of Reason. And on and on we go.
Now, Timmy Two Planks, what is the problem with God and time? Come on Planks, what is it?

Reason determines what's possible — Bartricks

And just how exactly do you see that working? Does it not occur to you that in order for a determination to be made about something, the something has to first be a something? Please make this clear.

Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

All those guys had different definitions of the apex (God), but most took the existence of pyramidal Natural Hierarchy for granted. The notion of a non-hierarchical (egaliatarian) Nature seems to be a rather modern idea. Obviously, that classless concept does not describe how-it-is, but how-it-ought-to-be. Since the order of the real world (red in tooth & claw) is not Edenic (Lions eat grass and play with Lambs), they conclude that it was not created by someone as smart, or moral, as themselves. Hence, our disorderly world, with random acts of cruelty, is a result of erratic events instead of intentional intelligence. QED

However, that idealistic appraisal seems to assume that an all-powerful God would or should create only perfection. But perfection is complete & static, with no room to grow. So, what if the top guy (mono a mano) intended instead to create an ongoing logical process that approaches perfection gradually and slowly? In that case, the current hierarchical structure of evolution would make sense in terms of Bayesian Logic. No? :chin:

Bayesian Logic :
probabilistic logic that evolves over time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

Once more: evidence is made of epistemic reasons. Those are attitudes of Reason. So, that means..........she's got control over what there's evidence for.

Truth is the property propositions have when Reason asserts them. So that means......she's got control over what's true.

There's no greater control than the control Reason has.

If you think there is, then either you think there's reason to think there is greater control possible - in which case you're appealing to Reason and just being dumb - or you think there's no reason to think there's greater control possible.

Now, answer my question - what's the problem with Time Timmy? It's looking like you dun don't know.

You apparently are unable to distinguish between telling and explaining. So I suggest we drop it. As to this

What's the problem with Time Timmy? — Bartricks

I don't know what you're referring to.

My own "take" is that if a being is omni-something, then they are that all the time - for if there is a time when they're not, then they're not, and consequently not omni-. In considering time as past-present-future, which makes perfect sense for beings like us who encounter/construct time just that way, if at the same time we suppose an omnipotent god to be in time in the same way, then there are things he cannot do. It makes sense, on the account of this being, then, to place him outside of time, so that all of his omnipotence is always already realized.

Kindly observe I argue against neither omnipotence nor omnibenevolence, but instead just the uncritical housing of them in the same agent.

Where did I say that God was infinite? Quote me saying it. — Bartricks

Is God finite or infinite?

I do not know what you are asking me.

Well, is there a limit to how many computations God can do in a second?

But I don't agree on the chaos/disorder aspect. I can't see too much of that where I live in any case. It all seems pretty orderly to me. Perhaps not 100% perfect, but could be worse, so why complain? — Apollodorus

I wouldn't count on personal experience to draw any conclusions about the state of the world. World wars (2 of them and the 3rd on fhe horizons), the 1918 flu pandemic and the ongoing COVID-19 one, crime rates are appalling in some parts of the world, climate change issues, etc. In short, disharmony is the name of the game.

But aren't the events of the last five years a little too strange? If you went back to 2015 and tried to sell the story of what America's actually gone through, you would be laughed out of the room. Nobody would take you seriously. I think reality has been trying to hit us over the head with a certain lesson:this (Trump) is what happens when you devote your life to chasing idols like fame and money and power. This is what naked ego looks like. Take a good hard look. I think there's design to it all.

In short, disharmony is the name of the game. — TheMadFool

A glass can be half empty or half full. It's all a matter of perspective. If you insists on seeing chaos and disorder everywhere and at all times, then probably that's what you will see.

No, obviously.

kindly note that you have offered no argument for your conviction that the omni properties cannot be borne by the same person.

You - you - mentioned a supposed problem with time after it became dimly apparent to you that you weren't able to say why omnipotence and omnibenevolence weren't compatible. I mean, you are going to just keep saying there's a problem, right, even though I have shown you time and time again that omnipotence leads to omnibenevolence and you have raised no criticism. You've just gone 'what?' a lot.

I can't understand what you have just said about time. But an omnipotent being can do anything including divesting themselves of omnipotence. So they are not determined always to be omnipotent. They most likely will, of course, but your assertion that if one has omnipotence one always does is false given that an omnipotent person can cease being so whenever they like. So I don't know why you think otherwise.